Talk:Triazenes

CAS update

As of today, 4014 articles, patents etc have been written on triazene. It is unreasonable to expect to cite all or most of these. And when articles are from really 3rd rate journal, they should probably be dropped. In any care, WP:SECONDARY is probably a useful guideline. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

Smokefoot Dear user please write columns, design figures and make citations, these are real contributions to Wikipedia. Deleting is a destructive sabotage where no improved material has been provided. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Chemistry (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikichemistry. Oh I am a regular creator of graphics. Here is a listing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smokefoot.

But I am also sufficiently experienced to question some graphics (and other content), much of which is mediocre, redundant, or highlights obscure stuff (like the mediocre citations that dominated triazenes before 2 days ago. Early Wikichem articles were often slapped together without much attention to general guidelines, e.g. of notability, generality, not textbooky. So when I am a deletionist, inferior content is replaced by superior material. For example, many times line equations are superior to artwork because line equations highlight balanced equations, which others can edit.

In any case, we are mainly here to discuss content. Are there important areas of triazene chemistry that you think we are omitting? Lets discuss! Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Smokefoot Please pay attention to the following before making destructive and unnecessary edits.

1.Production: the version you have provided is incomplete. Use of phrases such as "well-known" are not informative where your version does not recognize the difference of symmetrical and asymmetrical triazenes. 2. tautomerization is not a reaction, your version includes it as the top reaction. 3. Your version fails to provide references and includes false information. "Triazenes find commercial applications as drugs and as dyes." 4. Further reading! is totally unusual and confusing. my version has sorted these chunks of information! please dont mess with the readers. I have no time for giving chemistry lectures, but appreciate your offer and collaboration to the improvement of this page. Please make reasonable changes, backed them up with appropriate references and avoid deleting the existing and useful information. Then we can talk positively. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Chemistry (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

We can discuss later. Thanks for your response. Maybe you can learn some chemistry together?

"Production: the version you have provided is incomplete." but better than what was there. I use better secondary refs, not some obscure journal!

"Use of phrases such as "well-known" are not informative where your version does not recognize the difference of symmetrical and asymmetrical triazenes." Not sure I understand. Anyway they are all unsymmetrical, right! So we need to figure out some nomenclature.

2. tautomerization is not a reaction, your version includes it as the top reaction. Of course tautomerization is a chemical reaction, of course: a reactant goes to a product. We all teach that reaction in our classes, of course. Dont you?

3. Your version fails to provide references and includes false information. "Triazenes find commercial applications as drugs and as dyes." Why would I list false info? Wikipedia strives to mention real apps, and those two are commercial, as indicated by the Ullmann and the med chem refs.

4. Further reading! is totally unusual and confusing. my version has sorted these chunks of information! please dont mess with the readers. I have no time for giving chemistry lectures, but appreciate your offer and collaboration to the improvement of this page. Please make reasonable changes, backed them up with appropriate references and avoid deleting the existing and useful information. Then we can talk positively. I think my version is superior because my sources are superior. That is kinda the point of this discussion, to enlighten each other on sources.

In any case, off to work, see you later. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)